Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0863.000 2004-2006 Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu F N>FP`` April 26, 2006 MEMORANDUM TO: Stacy K. Higa, Council Chair and Council Members I lawai`i County Council FROM: James Y. Arakaki, Alternate Vice Chair I lawai`i State Association of Counties SUBJECT: HSAC Executive Committee Meeting of April 21, 2006 Attached for your review is the HSAC Executive Committee Meeting agenda and related communications. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. JYA/daw Attachments Comm No.~_ Ref. To. ~ ^ I P.C. off' ' r; rr\t~„ Ref. Date MM AY,n„5nns. r Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu Y AGENDA HSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING Friday, April 21, 2006 10:00 a.m. Council Committee Room, Honolulu Hale - w Honolulu, Hawaii co D M 1. CALL TO ORDER o, 11. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES A. Minutes of the March 20, 2006 Executive Committee Meeting, submitted by the HSAC Secretary. III. TREASURER'S REPORT Report for February 2006, submitted by the HSAC Treasurer, by fiq, r correspondence dated March 14, 2006, for the fiscal period February i "through February 28, 2006. B. Revised R prr February 2006, submitted by the HSAC Treasurer, by correspondb &ted M r x 2006 for the fiscal period February 1 through February 28, 201 IV. REPORTS ;s. .._n A. Executive Committee Reports. 1. Report of official action taken at the March 20, cutive Committee Meeting, approving the nomination air Donovan M. Dela Cruz (Honolulu City Coun G. Riki Hokama (Maui County Council), and Cou Kaneshiro (Kauai County Council) to the NACo and the appointments of Council Chair Stacy County Council) and Councilmember Mel Rap ty Council) to the WIR Board of Directors. fC~'p1~ c HSAC Executive Committee Agenda Page 2 B. County Reports. 1. Maui County Report. 2. Hawaii County Report. 3. City and County of Honolulu Report. 4. Kauai County Report. C. National Association of Counties (NACo) Report. D. Western Interstate Region (WIR) Report. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Proposed Annual Budget. 1. Correspondence dated March 29, 2006, from the HSAC Treasurer, transmitting a revised proposed HSAC FY 2006-2007 Annual Budget. B. Nominations. 1. Nominations to the NACo Board of Directors. a. Correspondence dated March 22, 2006, from the HSAC President, informing of the nominations of Councilmember Daryl W. Kaneshiro (County of Kauai); Councilmember G. Riki Hokama (County of Maui); and Councilmember Donavan M. Dela Cruz (City and County of Honolulu) to serve on the NACo Board of Directors for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. 2. Nominations to the WIR Board of Directors. a. Correspondence dated March 22, 2006, from the HSAC President, informing of the nominations of Councilmember Stacy K. Higa (County of Hawaii) and Councilmember Mel Rapozo (County of Kauai) to serve on the WIR Board of Directors for the period July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007. HSAC Executive Committee Agenda Page 3 C. School Impact Fee Working Group. 1. Correspondence dated March 29, 2006, from the Office of the Auditor, transmitting the Working Group's April 6, 2006 meeting agenda, the draft minutes of the February 23, 2006 meeting, and additional information. 2. Additional Correspondence. D. Other Business. 1. Correspondence dated March 22, 2006, from the HSAC President, informing the NACo President of the immediate appointment of Councilmember Daryl W. Kaneshiro to replace Councilmember James Kunane Tokioka on the NACo Board of Directors. E. Schedule of Upcoming HSAC Meetings. „«{le.day ~zi..Friday, place and time to be announced. June 16, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. - G« e~ 1~ July 14, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. August 2006 - no HSAC meeting. September 2006 - no HSAC meeting. October 13, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. November 9, 2006, Thursday, place and time to be announced. December 8, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. VI. NEW BUSINESS VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. HSAC Officers. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. Next Executive Committee Meeting to be held on Friday, May 12, 2006, place and time to be announced. B. Other announcements. IX. ADJOURNMENT ocs:prof:hsac:hsac2005-2006:06agendas:060421:ske Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu ~,El. "•e•et t wj. MINUTES HSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING March 20, 2006 Council Committee Meeting Room, City Hall Honolulu, Hawaii I. CALL TO ORDER The Executive Committee was called to order by President Dain P. Kane at 10:02 a.m. The following members present comprised a quorum: County of Maui: President Dain P. Kane County of Hawaii: Alternate James Y. Arakaki City and County of Secretary Romy M. Cachola Honolulu County of Kauai: Treasurer James Kunane Tokioka Others Present: Maui Staff Shelly Espeleta Hawaii Staff Donna Watanabe Kauai Staff Cyndi Ayonon Honolulu Staff Calvin Azama II. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES The minutes of the February 16, 2006 meeting of the Executive Committee was approved. III. TREASURER'S REPORT The Treasurer's Report, dated February 9, 2006, for the fiscal period January 1 through January 31, 2006, was approved. OCS 032206 10:00 HM *rr IV. REPORTS A. Executive Committee Report There was no Executive Committee report. B. County Reports There were no county reports. C. National Association of Counties (NACo) Report There was no NACo report. D. Western Interstate Region (WIR) Report President Kane reported that the WIR will hold its next meeting in Sacramento on May 10 to 12, 2006. V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Status Of HSAC Bill Secretary Cachola reported that all the public beach, lifeguard, and public land liability bills have died, except for S.B. No. 2412, S.D. 1, H.D. 1. Like the original version, the H.D. 1 repeals the sunset dates on the public beach and lifeguard liability provisions. In contrast, the S.D. 1 had repealed the sunset date for only the public beach provision and simply extended the sunset date of the lifeguard provision. The House Water, Land and Ocean Resources Committee, however, reinserted in the H.D. 1 the repeal of the sunset date of the lifeguard provision. The S.D. 1 is now in the House Judiciary Committee. President Kane reported that he submitted testimony to the House Water, Land and Ocean Resources Committee on behalf of the HSAC in support of the S.D. 1, but with a clarification that HSAC prefers the repeal of the sunset date of the lifeguard provision. C. Uniform Statewide Building Code Task Force The Executive Committee considered the correspondence, dated March 3, 2006, from President Kane transmitting two versions of H.B. No. 3230 received from State 2 Comptroller Russ K. Saito relating to the establishment of a State Building Code. Secretary Cachola reported that H.B. No. 3230, which implements the uniform statewide building code, did not cross over from the House to the Senate. Although that particular bill is dead, Secretary Cachola explained that its substance could be incorporated into another bill with an appropriate title that crossed over. President Kane asked Secretary Cachola if he would assist in communicating with Mr. Saito for an understanding of the situation with respect to the uniform statewide building code. It would be easier for Secretary Cachola since both he and Mr. Saito are in Honolulu. Secretary Cachola agreed, and requested the President to send to Mr. Saito a letter to that effect. Treasurer Tokioka stated that the amendment made by the House to H.B. No. 3230 was not part of the version approved by the Task Force. Kauai and other county building officials had concerns about the amendment. Ms. Ayonon reported that the major difference is that, under the original version, revisions to the statewide building code by the counties would not have to be approved by the state building code commission. Under the amended version, revisions made by the counties would have to be approved by the commission. President Kane requested Treasurer Tokioka to send a communication describing the concerns. Treasurer Tokioka responded that he will send to the Executive Committee the communication from the Kauai building official. Secretary Cachola stated that, if the counties want the bill to pass, time is of the essence. County officials must come into agreement in order to increase the chance of passage. Secretary Cachola commented that he would check with the Honolulu building official for the city 3 administration's position on the statewide building code. President Kane noted that the e-mail from Mr. Saito suggests that the provisions of H.B. No. 3230 would be incorporated into S.B. No. 2214. A check of S.B. No. 2214, however, indicated that the provisions were not in the bill. Attempts to reach Mr. Saito by telephone on the issue were unsuccessful. Because of the confusion over the situation with respect to the statewide building code legislation, the Executive Committee deferred the item. D. School Impact Fee Working Group President Kane stated that the minutes of the Working Group may be seen on the State Legislative Auditor's website at www.state.hi.us/auditor/meetings.htm. He further reported that the Working Group cannot submit its report on the school impact fee issue to the legislature in time for action this year. Instead, the Working Group will continue working on the report for submittal next year. He indicated that the item will be left on the Executive Committee's upcoming agendas in case the need for discussion arises. E. Schedule Of Upcoming HSAC Meetings President Kane proposed the following schedule of upcoming Executive Committee meetings: April 21, 2006, Friday, Honolulu Hale, 10 a.m. May 12, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. June 9, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. July 14, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. August 2006 no meeting. September 2006 no meeting. October 13, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. November 9, 2006, Thursday, place and time to be announced. December 8, 2006, Friday, place and time to be announced. 4 After review and discussion, the Executive Committee tentatively agreed to the schedule, with the substitution of "June 16" for "June 9." VI. NEW BUSINESS A. Proposed Annual Budget By correspondence, dated February 27, 2006, Treasurer Tokioka transmitted to the Executive Committee a proposed HSAC annual budget for fiscal year 2006-07. Treasurer Tokioka indicated that he did not know how much revenues from the HSAC conference should be assumed for the budget because HSAC will now hold only one conference a year instead of two. Furthermore, he has not yet received from the Hawaii Council its final financial report for the December 2005 conference on the Big Island. He noted that the budget assumes the same conference revenues as this year, $10,000. Ms. Watanabe reported that the financial report has been submitted to the Hawaii Council Chair, but not yet approved because the Chair has been out-of-town. She indicated that the estimated net revenue is $1,300. She also reported that the Hawaii Council cannot close the conference books as yet because one outstanding bill remains to be paid. The Executive Committee then had a discussion on the consequences of generating annual conference revenues of less than $10,000. Ms. Ayonon noted that, at this time, it is difficult to estimate the ending balance for this fiscal year. She indicated that the county councils have not submitted all of their requests for travel reimbursements. They usually wait until the end of the year. President Kane requested the Executive Committee members to submit their travel reimbursement requests as soon as possible. 5 Alternate Arakaki asked whether HSAC will have enough funds if the assumed conference revenue amount is not achieved. Treasurer Tokioka responded that HSAC has enough cash to pay for obligations of the current fiscal year. He also suggested that the proposed budget for the next fiscal year be revised to reflect an estimate of less conference revenues. Alternate Arakaki brought up the idea of increasing the HSAC dues if the conference revenues fall short. Treasurer Tokioka responded that the dues were increased two years ago to assist Honolulu with the 2005 NACo conference. He commented that the Executive Committee received "flak" from some county councils for that action. Treasurer Tokioka added that some of the excess conference revenues from previous years were given to Honolulu for the NACo Conference. The amount given was $37,000. President Kane requested Treasurer Tokioka to send the revised budget to Executive Committee members by April 15, the deadline set in the HSAC Bylaws. Then the Executive Committee will discuss it at the meeting of April 21. B. Nominations 1. Nominations To The NACo Board Of Directors. By a correspondence, dated March 1, 2006, President Kane requested nominations for three NACo directors. President Kane reported that the Kauai Council has nominated Kauai Councilmember Daryl Kaneshiro to serve on the NACo Board of Directors in place of Treasurer Tokioka. See the correspondence, dated February 27, 2006, from Treasurer Tokioka. Secretary Cachola nominated Honolulu Council Chair Donovan Dela Cruz. President Kane nominated Maui Council Chair Riki Hokama. b President Kane then asked for a motion to approve the nominations of Kauai Councilmember Kaneshiro, Honolulu Council Chair Dela Cruz, and Maui Council Chair Hokama to the NACo Board of Directors. Treasurer Tokioka so moved. Secretary Cachola seconded the motion. The Executive Committee then approved the motion. Secretary Cachola asked if the Executive Committee must also approve the alternates. Treasurer Tokioka responded in the negative, noting that each council has the discretion of appointing its own alternate. 2. Nominations To The WIR Board Of Directors By correspondence, dated March 1, 2006, President Kane requested nominations of two WIR directors. Alternate Arakaki nominated Hawaii Council Chair Stacy Higa. Treasurer Tokioka nominated Kauai Councilmember Mel Rapozo. Secretary Cachola moved to approve the nominations of both persons to serve on the WIR Board of Directors. Treasurer Tokioka seconded the motion. The Executive Committee then approved the motion. President Kane noted that the nominations to the NACo and WIR boards of directors now will be sent to the county councils for their consideration and approval. If all county councils approve, the nominations will be submitted to the HSAC General Membership for formal approval at the meeting in June. The nominees to the NACo Board then must be appointed by the NACo President. 7 The nominees to the WIR Board will be deemed appointed without need for action by WIR. C. Disabled Person Parking Program Resolution By a correspondence, dated March 8, 2006, President Kane requested consideration of a proposed resolution urging the governor and state Department of Health, Disability and Communication Access Board, to fairly and adequately reimburse the County of Maui for expenses incurred in the operation of the statewide program on parking for persons with disabilities. President Kane commented that the counties implement the program for the state. The state in turn provides reimbursements to the counties. President Kane, however, noted that the state reimbursements are less than the counties' operation costs. For example, Maui County receives a state reimbursement of about $9,000, although its cost is about $42,000. President Kane stated that he is not requesting the other county councils to take action on the resolution. He simply wants the county councils to be aware of the issue and consider similar resolutions. Secretary Cachola stated that he intends to introduce a resolution on the issue for consideration by the Honolulu Council. He wanted to explore if the City and County of Honolulu also is not receiving adequate reimbursements from the state. He suggested that other county councils also explore the issue. President Kane recommended that Executive Committee members, if interested, contact Ms. Espeleta for more information. Alternate Arakaki indicated that he also will introduce a resolution on the issue at the Hawaii Council. Secretary Cachola noted that the legislature also should be requested to include money in the budget bill for the upcoming fiscal year to increase the state reimbursements. President Kane reported that the Maui Council adopted its resolution on March 3. 8 D. Miscellaneous Correspondences President Kane stated that the following correspondences are presented for information: 1. Correspondence, dated January 2006, from the NACo County Service Representative transmitting a document entitled, "Format For NACo Involvement At State Association Of Counties Meetings/2006." 2. Correspondence, dated February 7, 2006, from the American Planning Association Policy Director encouraging attendance at the American Planning Association's National Planning Conference in San Antonio, Texas, from April 22 through 26, 2006. 3. Correspondence, received on March 6, 2006, from the Co-Chairs of the Internet Innovation Alliance transmitting a study conducted by The Phoenix Center and testimony from the Mayor of Fort Worth, Texas, pertaining to franchise reform. 4. Correspondence, dated February 9, 2006, from Hank Bartos requesting support for a bid by Fairbanks, Alaska, to host the 2007 NACo/WIR meeting. President Kane reported that the WIR Board did approve Fairbanks' bid for the WIR meeting in 2007. The WIR Board also approved holding the following year's WIR meeting in Utah. VII. ELECTION OF OFFICERS A. HSAC Officers By a correspondence, dated March 1, 2006, President Kane requested the county councils to appoint members to serve on the Executive Committee. Treasurer Tokioka, in a correspondence dated February 27, 2006, informed the Executive Committee that he will continue to serve as an HSAC officer until December 1, 2006 and that Kauai Councilmember Mel Rapozo will serve as an HSAC alternate replacing Kauai Councilmember Daryl Kaneshiro. 9 Secretary Cachola indicated that he will be the Honolulu Council's representative on the Executive Committee. President Kane requested the other Executive Committee members to be prepared to submit their appointees at the next meeting. VIII. ANNOUNCEMENTS A. President Kane announced that the next Executive Committee meeting will be held on Friday, April 21, 2006, 10 a.m., at Honolulu Hale. B. Treasurer Tokioka thanked the Executive Committee members for their concerns about the flooding on Kauai. C. President Kane thanked Treasurer Tokioka for this service on the NACo Board of Directors. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, President Kane adjourned the meeting of the Executive Committee at 11:20 a.m. Very truly yours, R Y M CACHOLA, Secretary wa' State Association of Counties 10 Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu MYY J 3 March 14, 2006 Tlie 1>coctive Committee Members a; Hawaii-Mate Association of Counties Dear Executive Committee Members:. Please find enclosed a report of the Assoc anon-s revenues collected and expenses paid for the fiscal period February 1 thrgi gla Fp ruary 28,-2006. Si ely, AM NANE TOKIOKA' Treasurer, Hawaii State< Association of Counties l'R 606-119 HAWAII STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES REVENUES COLLECTED AND EXPENSES PAID Fiscal Period: February 1 through February 28, 2006 FUND BALANCE AT BEGINNING DATE $59,516.01 This Period Year to Date Budget 001 Membership Fees $0.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 010 Conference Income (2004 Mid-Year Conference-Oahu) 0.00 104.51 10,000.00 030 Interest Income 27.01 194.39 300.00 050 Corporate Sponsorship 0.00 0.00 500.00 Carryover Balance Total $27.01 $42,298.90 $57,800.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD $27.01 Disbursements Executive Committee 201 Travel 0.00 450.00 4,500.00 202 Auditing Services 0.00 0.00 8,100.00 203 Stationery 0.00 0.00 100.00 209 Miscellaneous 0.00 5.00 500.00 Special Committees 301 Travel 0.00 0.00 600.00 309 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 100.00 NACo 401 Travel 0.00 785.15 9,000.00 402 Promotional 0.00 0.00 500.00 403 Dues 0.00 23,686.00 23,700.90 409 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 W 1R 501 Travel 0.00 1,000.00 6,000.00 502 Promotional 0.00 0.00 500.00 503 Dues 0.00 2,750.00 3,000.00 509 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 Conferences 609 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 611 NACo Annual Conference 2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 613 2005 Mid-Year Conference 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 Total $0.00 $29,676.15 $57,800.00 TOTAL EXPENSES THIS PERIOD $0.00 FUND BALANCE AT END OF PERIOD: $59,543.02 HSAC - Page 2 Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu March 30, 2006 r T __tive Committee Members Havwaa`i State Association of Counties Dear Executive Committee Members:. Please find enclosed a revised report of ,the Association's revenues collected and expenses paid for the fiscal period ebruai3"1 through February 28, 2006. Sincerel ES NANE TOKIOKA reasurer, Hawaii State Association of Counties (906-160 HAWAII STATE ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES REVENUES COLLECTED AND EXPENSES PAID Fiscal Period: February I through February 28, 2006 FUND BALANCE AT BEGINNING DATE $59,516.01 This Period Year to Date Budget 001 Membership Fees $0.00 $42,000.00 $42,000.00 010 Conference Income 15,980.07 16,084.58 10,000.00 030 Interest Income 27.01 194.39 300.00 050 Corporate Sponsorship 0.00 0.00 500.00 Carryover Balance Total $16,007A8 $58,278.97 $57,800.00 TOTAL RECEIPTS THIS PERIOD $16,007.08 Disbursements Executive Committee 201 Travel 0.00 450.00 4,500.00 202 Auditing Services 0.00 0.00 8,100.00 203 Stationery 0.00 0.00 100.00 209 Miscellaneous 0.00 5.00 500.00 Special Committees 301 Travel 0.00 0.00 600.00 309 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 100.00 NACo 401 Travel 0.00 785.15 9,000.00 402 Promotional 0.00 0.00 500.00 403 Dues 0.00 23,686.00 23,700.00 409 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 1,200.00 WIR 501 Travel 0.00 1,000.00 6,000.00 502 Promotional 0.00 0.00 500.00 503 Dues 0.00 2,750.00 3,000.00 509 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 Conferences 609 Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00 0.00 611 NACo Annual Conference 2005 0.00 0.00 0.00 613 2005 Mid-Year Conference 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 Total $0.00 $29,676.15 $57,800.00 TOTAL EXPENSES THIS PERIOD $0.00 FUND BALANCE AT END OF PERIOD: $75,523.09 * On 11/10/05 A deposit of $15,980.07 was not previously reported. HSAC - Page 2 Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City &County of Honolulu 3 Official Action Taken Approval By Executive Committee Meeting of March 20, 2006 March 22, 2006 a~ .4 The Honorable Dain P. Kane, President Hawaii State Association of Counties 200 South High Street. Wailuku, Maui 96793 Dear President Kane: Pursuant to Section 20 of the Bylaws'of;the-Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC), which req-i}irj a, deport of every official action taken, the following rejc,it5 6' X a (approval of nominees to the National Association of Countie W) Board of Directors and appointees to the Western Interstate Region (WIR) Board of Directors. Section 5A of the HSAC Bylaws requires the county c "ils of HSAC to nominate annually three members from differ1 j . councils to serve on the NACo Board of Directors. Thy the nominees are sent to the NACo President, who is res m for making the appointments to the NACo Board. f Section 5B of the HSAC Bylaws requires the countyj'' of HSAC to appoint annually two members from Hawaii serve on the WIR Board of Directors. No approval by th:.,R is needed in order for the appointees to serve on the Board Under the process followed by HSAC, the Executive Committee formulates a list of nominees to the NACo Board and appointees to the WIR Board for each fiscal year and transmits the list to the county councils for review and approval. If the county councils unanimously approve the nominees and appointees, then the approved list is sent to the HSAC General Membership for its approval during the June meeting. Pursuant to recommendations from the Executive Committee members, the Executive Committee has approved, to serve during the fiscal year 2006-07, the following list of nominees to the NACo Board of Directors and appointees to the WIR Board of Directors. Nominees to NACo Board of Directors Nominee County Council Donovan M. Dela Cruz, Chair Honolulu City Council G. Riki Hokama, Chair Maui County Council Daryl W. Kaneshiro, Member Kauai County Council Appointees to WIR Board of Directors Appointee County Council Stacy K. Higa, Chair Hawaii County Council Mel Rapozo, Member Kauai County Council The Executive Committee has recommended that the county councils approve the list and direct their representatives to the HSAC General Membership to vote likewise at the June meeting. Very truly yours, 4.1414-41. Y M CACHOLA, Secretary H wa' State Association of Co ties 2 Hawaii State Association of Counties Counties of Kauai, Maui and Hawaii, City & County of Honolulu Y~ March 29, 2006 q ,1 4 x TO: MEMBERS OF THE HSAC EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FROM: JAMES KUNANE TOKIREASURER RE: HSAC FY 2006-2007 ANNUAL BUDGET ~y r ''Pursuant to the ByLaws of the Hawaii State Association of Counties and as the Treasurer of the Association,, I am submitting the attached budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 along with the budget details. Since there will only be one (i)' conference per year and the proceeds (revenues) from the June 2007 conference wil1', be, transmitted. during the FY 2007-2008, in preparing this next year's balanced `budget, 1 aye incorporated the following assumptions and changes: 1) Interest income to decrease from last fiscal year 2) Conference Income deleted since there- only ``be on `(1) conference a year pursuant to the ByLaws. Proceefls•-.gerleratd.=from the next scheduled conference to be held June 2007-to be`deposited during FY 2007-08. 3) HSAC assessments (dues) remain the same for each co ' from last fiscal year. 4) Executive Committee Travel to increase from last fiscal/y" increase in airfare. 5) Auditing/ Professional services account to decrease from I 6) Executive Committee Miscellaneous account to decrease" . year. 7) Special Committee Travel and Miscellaneous accounts to ' last fiscal year. 8) NACo Promotional account and NACo Miscellaneous accoLt~[1t (i'tl6er'ease from last fiscal year. 9) NACo dues to increase by 2.8%. 10) WIR Promotional account to decrease from last year. It is my recommendation that the Executive Committee submit this budget by April 15, 2006 to the Councils for consideration. Att. O,HtY Of ' wkly • xfFO H~'' x. xC• FY 2006-2007 BUDGET DETAILS: Revenues 1) Interest Income ($9.58 x 12 months) _ $115.00 2) Conference Income from June 2007 Year-End Conference = $ 00.00 3) County Assessments ($10,500.00 x 4 counties) _ $42,000.00 Expenditures 1) Executive Committee Travel = $5,250.00 ($175 x 3 members x 10 meetings) 2) Executive Committee Audit/ Professional Services = $3,500.00 ($3,500 financial audit) 3) Executive Committee Miscellaneous = $250.00 4) Stationery = $100.00 5) NACo Travel = $9,000.00 ($1,000 x 3 Board Directors x 3 mtgs.) 6) NACo Promotional = $250.00 (promotions at NACo meetings) 7) NACo Miscellaneous = $1,000.00 (Congressional Luncheon and contingency) 8) NACo Dues = $24,365.00 (City & County $18,390.00; Hawaii $2,650.00; Kauai $1,120.00; Maui $2,205.00) 9) WIR Travel = $6,000.00 ($1,000 x 2 Board Director x 3 meetings) 10) WIR Promotional = $250.00 (promotions at WIR meetings) 11) WIR Dues = $3,000.00 ($2,750 for dues/$250 for Public Lands Trust Fund) PROPOSED HSAC BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 Proposed FY 05-06 FY 06-07 REVENUES Budget Budget 1. Interest Income 300.00 115.00 2. Conference Income 10,000.00 00.00 3. County Assessments 42,000.00 42,000.00 4. Corporate Sponsorship 500.00 00.00 Total Revenues 52,800.00 42,115.00 Fund Balance, prior FY 5,000.00 10,850.00 TOTAL REVENUES AND FUND BALANCE 57,800.00 52,965.00 EXPENDITURES HSAC Committees: 1. Executive Committee Travel 4,500.00 5,250.00 2. Auditing/ Professional Services 8,100.00 3,500.00 3. Executive Committee Misc. 500.00 250.00 4. Stationery 100.00 100.00 Special Committees: 5. Special Committee Travel 600.00 00.00 6. Special Committee Misc. 100.00 00.00 NACo/WIR: 7. NACo Travel 9,000.00 9,000.00 8. NACo Promotional 500.00 250.00 9. NACo Miscellaneous 1,200.00 1,000.00 10. NACo Dues 23,700.00 24,365.00 11. WIR Travel 6,000.00 6,000.00 12. WIR Promotional 500.00 250.00 13. WIR Dues 3,000.00 3,000.00 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 57,800.00 52,965.00 Hawaii State Association of Counties q Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu Y March 22, 2006 Members of the Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC) Executive Committee Dear HSAC Executive Committee Members: SUBJECT: NOMINATIONS TO THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES (NACO) BOARD OF DIRECTORS As discussed at the March 20, 2006 HSAC Executive Committee meeting, the following Council members have been nominated to serve on the NACo Board of Directors for the period of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, pursuant to Section 5A of the HSAC Bylaws: o1a11„ 1Imember Daryl W. Kaneshiro (County of Kauai) CrSilmember G R1ki Hokama (County of Maui) r, Councilmember D'L64,4an M. Dela Cruz (City and County of Honolulu) rv~~M1 Sot May I request thatrf Is~~atter be referred-to all four counties for approval. Your favorable consideration of this request woA46` app eciated v Sii~cerelY Y,:. ' " w DAIN P. KANE President, HSAC ocs:proj:hsac:hsac 2005-2006:06letters:NACo nominees:ske W. u P Co Hawaii State Association of Counties 4 Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu t March 22, 2006 Members of the Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC) Executive Committee Dear HSAC Executive Committee Members: SUBJECT: NOMINATIONS TO THE WESTERN INTERSTATE REGION (WIR) BOARD OF DIRECTORS As discussed at the March 20, 2006 HSAC Executive Committee meeting, the following Council members have been nominated to serve on the WIR Board of Directors for the period of July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2007, pursuant to Section 5B of the HSAC Bylaws: ufiatlmember Stacy K. Higa (County of Hawaii) 66~11member Mel Rapozo (County of Kauai) May I request thaEhIs matter be referred to all four counties for approval. Your favorable consideration A" guest you d:b .appreciated. t ar Sinperet~r . DAIN P. KANE~ ' President, HSAC ocs:proj:hsac:hsac 2005-2006:06letters:W IR nominees:ske a; z rr,R ~ts March 29, 2006 '06 MRR 30 P3 :05 MEMORANDUM OFFICE C~ H TO: School Impact Fees Working Group MembersCo t C l `ill_ FROM: Pat Mukai, Office of the Auditor- ->--<--SUBJECT: Working Group Meeting - April 6, 2006 Distribution for the School Impact Fees Working Group Meeting on Thursday, April 6, 2006 is enclosed. Please brine the distribution with you to the meeting, including the red binders provided at the first meeting. Duplicate materials will not be provided. We expect the meeting to run about three hours: • If you are driving to town for the meeting, mileage reimbursement forms will be provided at the meeting. Also, parking passes have been provided in this packet for those members whose offices are located outside of the Civic Center area. If you need a parking pass and have not received one, please contact our office no later than Monday, April 3, 2006. • If you are traveling from the Neighbor Islands, please plan your flight schedule accordingly. You will be reimbursed for airfare, cab fare to and from the airport in Honolulu, as well as parking fees and mileage on your, home island. In lieu of per diem, a meal allowance will be provided. Finally, please bring your calendar to the meeting as we intend to plan future meetings. If you have any questions or cannot attend the meeting, please call Mrs. Pat Mukai, Secretary, or Ms. Jan Yamane, Administrative Deputy Auditor/In-house Counsel, Office of the Auditor, at 587-0800. Mahalo for your participation and commitment to this important project. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. r School Impact Fee Working Group Agenda Date: Thursday, April 6, 2006 Time: 9:00 a.m. Place: Conference Room 224 State Capitol 415 South Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 1. Call to Order, Public Notice, Quorum it. Chair's Report a. Announcements, Introductions, Correspondence, and Additional Distribution i. Letter dated February 27, 2006, from Sen. Suzanne Chun Oakland b. Minutes of Previous Meeting i. February 23, 2006 III. 2006 Legislature a. School Impact Fee Working Group Report to the 2006 Legislature i. Senate Bill 2708, Senate Draft 2 IV. Presentations by Central Oahu Developers a. Castle and Cooke (Koa Ridge) b. Gentry (Waiawa) V. Consultant a. Group 70 International, Inc. and Duncan Associates VI. Planning a. Next Meeting VII. Adjournment Individuals who require special needs accommodations are invited to call Jan K. Yamane, Administrative Deputy Auditor, at 587-0800 at least 4 working days in advance of the meeting. s tr i+ t Ei e fbenate `yam` f9tate of ataaii STATE CAPITOL HONOLULU, HAWAII 96613 MEMORANDUM TO: Jan Yamane Office of the Auditor FROM: Senator Norman Sakamoto DATE: March 6, 2006 SUBJECT: lmpact Fee Working Group Attached please find a letter from Senator Suzanne Chun Oakland requesting the School Impact Fee Working Group consider how Kakaako development can contribute to neighboring schools. 1 am transmitting this to you for correspondence to the Task Force. Attachment E'..a,> ZC a ~eliate whu MERCAno Kim l~ebuenty-~Ll~irD ''e.gi~latul•e h,[ikY" r;•.,"°`, ~M1:E 1 ,LLEEN HAMABUS4 of tltr 'r Mag+RMU-ICKF. tnte of ioaWnii ^ i AMU HEE aM $ . TSU;sn MATE CAPITO1. " u\wIT C+u: ti iE-W;n cO ra MMIUCS HONOLULU. HAWAII 96813 M14 .h EFiCfP P. HEMI!E MKCQyl FL 0-A LEF[F. H February 27, 2006 W.DCM<,RIMtLE F-t MTIIIM Honorable Norman Sakamoto, Chair 11.1PAPWl I+a„n[ Committee on Education and Military Affairs +x 1:OHrooISRI,=, Hawaii State Senate mE,a,E,Rlc, Hawaii State Capitol, Room 230 415 S. geretania St. UPTH Honolulu, HI 96813 1:1 D16,RK,1 R:+Ya'•T: H EAI:EF Tn DISTRICT Dain P. 7<ane, Councilmember hAlualElwsuY' County of Maui ' `E""'cEtR''=t Kalana O Maui Building, 8[h Floor ;H:Hf"E,Rx_, 200 South High Street S.K. M Wailuku, Hawaii 96793 11r1DI$3NIC1 LfiIHARF..6 4TH DIE MILT :v><u,HOI:TR117 Dear Senator Sakamoto &Councilmember Kane: e[„HCS,R,cT Thank you for your continued effort put in to the School Impact Fee Working Group. t^")P IATN"L[ y RTFF+IHD1$TRK.T Your diligence and time are very much appreciated. I am requesting that the School Impact Fee Working Group consider howl Kakaako development can contribute to +RTEEI+IMD lj r L,:,I«+a uER::,C.0 po au neighboring schools. Your attention to this matter would be very much appreciated. rET_fMM ns,,;,,.t 't'hank you again for your service. HGRMn,,:..u.. n-- TUNrM D15, F:ICI K+ Me ke aloha pumehana, Li+t i3EI+1 M OIS I RI(: T nl!if.Nf'H IM9th1Ll : y y ,L it E,'EEh a1-DISIHIP Suzanne N.J. Chun Oakland 11-11F .-M ri15TRl.^..1 [h State Senator; 1" District t•:TN MR=t D151 R1CT State Capitol, Room 225 rr.ZEb4..11 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: (808) 586-6130 '.2E[1 LtPJi J. 11'•.t HIRD DIETRIC T Fax: (808) 586-6131 ,'•."HFE E-mail: Senchunoakland!areapilol ha,eaii.eov +.11IUC r'i i'IS FO_T Cc: Senaiorr Carol Fukunaga 1.@F L- DIa+RIC t p l' . SN3CO:mf School Impact Fee Working Group (Established by Act 246, Session Laws of Hawaii 2005) State of Hawaii www.state.hi.us/auditor Minutes of Meeting The agenda for this meeting was filed with the Office of the Lieutenant Governor, as required by Section 92-7(b), Hawai'i Revised Statutes. Date: Thursday, February 23, 2006 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: State Capitol 415 South Beretania Street Conference Room 212 r Honolulu, Hawaii Present: Senator Sakamoto, President of the Senate Designee Austin Imamura, Designee for the Mayor of the City & County of Honolulu Randy Moore, DOE, Superintendent of Education Designee Anthony Ching, Executive Director, Land Use.,4pmrr %sion Councilmember Dain Kane, President of the'Hawaiy Asspciation of 61011 Untjes Duane Kashiwai, DOE Employee whose ktnary area (of fesponsibility 1S.rEpair and maintenance, capital improvement projects, and landhise planning Patricia Park, DOE, Central Oahu Complex Area,Shperintettdent (late arrival) Dean Uchida, Executive Director, Land,Use Research Foundation Bob Bruhl, Development Community Memberl(late arrival); Marion M. Higa, State Auditor Jan Yamane, Ad ministrafive Deputy Auditor/In House Counsel, Office of the Auditor Pat Mukai, Secretary, Office of the Auditor Ralph Portmore; G roup 70 Intehib tonal Absent: Representative Takumi; Speaker of the House of Representatives Designee Call to Order: Chair Sakamoto called the meeting to order at 10:03 a.m., at which time quorum was established. Chair's Report: Announcements, Introductions, Correspondence, and Additional Distribution Superintendent's Designee Chair Sakamoto asked Member Moore if he has officially replaced Rae Loui as the Superintendent's designee. Member Moore responded yes. Ms. Yamane stated that a letter had been received from the Superintendent's Office appointing Member Moore to the School Impact PeeWorking Group. An updated contact list with Member Moore's new contact information has been distributed for members' use. Member Park arrived at 10:07 a.m.. Big Island Impact Fee Project Member Uchida indicated that information was sent out regarding this project. There is a project in Hilo and another in Kona. The County of Hawaii is using the same consultant as the 2001 DOE study to determine Fair Share Contribution for the County of Hawaii. The island-wide impact fees are similar to ours. Member Uchida will be forwarding information as it becomes available on that project. The County of Hawaii meetings are open. School Impact Fee Working Group members may contact the county representative if they would like to attend one of these meetings. There was a video teleconference in January. 1 Minutes of Previous Meetings Chair Sakamoto asked whether members had reviewed the draft minutes of the December 28, 2005 meeting. Member Uchida indicated a correction on page 4, to replace "hard" with-"hot," so the sentence reads "hot button issue." Upon a motion by Member Councilmember Kane, seconded by Member Moore, it was voted on and unanimously carried to accept the minutes of the December 28, 2005 School Impact Fee Working Group, as amended. 2006 Legislative Measures Relating to School Impact Fees Legislature Chair Sakamoto indicated there are several bills going through the Legislature. Two bills that were introduced are still in the Senate. Member Representative Takumi, who is absent from this meeting today, would have to advise on bills that are alive in the House. One option is to amend one of the bills to have the work of this group continue. Perhaps 4s Yamene can share some information on where we are with the consultant contra , The goel5, xferave a study or something available as a resource to guide the Legisl The Char faked for the working group to brainstorm ideas. Chair Sakamoto indicated 'at there. is a sfrn ;pf frustration from both the department as well as the developing comet Ty The'Cb' I and Rd that he wanted the working group to come to some agreement on apr4rr lfs pnpcgss of negotiahngE~ract. Ms. Yamane stated that the Office of the Auditor is in The terms include a start date of April 1, 2006, with a target copletion date of frvc lrionths from that date. These dates take into consideration the consultant s schetluye, among other variables beyond our control. Ms. Yamane sought the.9 A [,A ? of the work'iiag p in determining whether this timeframe is acceptablet t,,,+ f ti*+". ,F Chair Sakamoto encouraged discussioh,#pf the issu r,ernber Imamura asked if that is a minimal timeframe. Would there be ariypossibill gettingg a draft out sooner? Ms. Yamane responded that the five month timefrarraa:is really 1. and would afford the consultant sufficient time to complete a thorougharaaI is , Member Councilmember Kane stated if five"? ~ 1. s is. coq I red fast track and April 1`r is the start date, his hope would be that the workingdgFt~ ;vrpi~ld favorably consider moving forward and discussing whether to r&'ise Act 246 (SLW F11 'br some other legislative vehicle to push out the iffolDt,the working gfotlp.Il makes sense to push out the dates a little farther and do a corajpreerls~ate fbb The other option is to stop and not proceed, but then the issues don't get addressed andAbb parties are baolcto square one. Given this, it would be favorable to consider some extension orottgi„accommodat~on:through Act 246 or another vehicle. And, even if it 'takes a little more marrej : at least tR"t lr6up will have something in hand six to seven months from now. That givesih7o group something to work with for the next legislative session in 2007. Chair Sakamoto asked#or tiAr. Portmore's input, since he was involved in the last study. Mr. I?,ortmore indicated that".#f@•is available as a resource on the previous study, but also wanted to stale for the record that is firm is negotiating with the Office of the Auditor to be the vendor/consultant for Etas Act 246 study. From his perspective, Mr. Portmore indicated that he, toolv~oid like additional guidance from the group. Member Cciur~cilinember Kane said that it's clear that the working group will not have a school impact fee product for this session. He would be in favor of extending the life of the working group, but indicated that he was not sure if the group needed to go back to the Legislature and make the request. Without legislation, the group cannot continue to meet beyond the sunset date, which is July 30, 2006. From a procedural standpoint, this is something the working group needs to discuss. If the group wants to move forvvard, if we think it's going to be in the best interest of the intent of Act 246, the group should make the request to the Legislature and seek an extension to complete the work of Act 246. Chair Sakamoto asked other members for input. Member Moore asked whether Act 246 needs to be more comprehensive? And if so and that's the wish of the working group, wouldn't the group need to wait until the Legislature passed amendments? The group couldn't start on the study if the scope might change. If it gets expanded, would we need additional appropriations if 2 it's a bigger study? Member Moore expressed his desire to come up with the best recommendation possible under the circumstances. Ms. Yamane clarified that the appropriations are for FY2005-06. The sunset date for the working group is July 30, 2006. If the group waits for legislation this year (2006) to redefine the scope, the work could not commence until after a bill to that effect is passed. So long as the contract is signed and the moneys encumbered before the end of FY2005-06, the moneys will not lapse. The problem will be with the life of the working group. In the above scenario, it may sunset shortly after a contract is signed and the consultant will not have guidance from the group. The consultant's work, however, will continue until the work is completed. Chair Sakamoto indicated that the study would be completed, just as if the Legislature asked the Auditor, Legislative Reference Bureau, or somebody else to dQ thi stud, Sometimes a study will have recommendations, sometimes not. When the,s its y is $ub}n the legislative committees don't always convene. So one option is t© &I-he worjkl r foup sunset, that is, don't continue it. Regardless of whether the working grou)~'fintmues; `eft d ill still be completed. 4 Member Uchida asked the Auditor a question. In your nesyotialions wdh fhb. "rewultant# is there more work that could or should be done? Do you get ate trrlp ession that th r s +work that could be done than what the working group is trA io ~ceotnplish? Ms. Yamane indicated that Act 246 is the basis for the negotiate -J, a language in the scope that was amended by the working group at the.December 28, 2005 aieet~~g is part of the 4 5 f negotiation. State Auditor Higa raised another issue €or consideiatin~' Sffe said that if the working group would like to see consultant testimomes before the_egis ~atvr, 3hat.work would be subsequent to the life of this working group, assurri'ng.there~isno legislatroi~#o'extend. Also, consultant testimony will require additionat moneys and F e.group walt)C need to go back to the Legislature to make that request for app~op~+ations. Member Uchida asked whether the scope, as t) exists today, is broad enough, sufficient to do a good job? State Auditof'Higa said she didn't g'bib:sehse that there was a shortfall in the language cif the scope. , Chair Sakamdtb sohcited further cdmrnents. He stated that one possible course of action is to attempt to get a bill tea approve extendtfag,this body and providing additional moneys for consultant presentatibn5'and continuallon costs. The other option is for the Office of the Auditor to agree on a contract?krov+ing that it's not going to be completed this session or stay within the timeframe. Even withduta study, the Legislature might do something anyway. Everyone-the Legislature, the department, and members of the developing community-is frustrated with this issue. It's difficult to gotconsensus. Chair Sakamoto asked for any final thoughts. Member Imamura offered that Member Uchida's Big Island study offers parallels to the school im66ct fee study. it would be interesting to know what the recommendations will be from that study;: Maybe those recommendations would even answer the question of whether we want to continue z,ping this? It would be most helpful for our work. Member Imamura asked whether there was a target timeframe for completion. Member Uchida indicated there's a meeting in the first week of March. They want to submit something to their council. So, with this revised timeframe, the county's consultants may be complete by the time our consultant begins. Member Imamura would like to take a look at the Big island study. He asked Member Uchida if he has the confidence they'll have something substantive. Member Uchida replied the methodology is pretty straightforward. They are asking questions such as how to arrive at the numbers; how should policy-makers view impact fees; and what does or should an impact fee do? Member Imamura asked if the impact fee approach or theory is unique to the Big Island? Member Uchida said the county is looking at it as just another pot of money. The concern is they 3 are moving away from an impact fee philosophy toward one of taxation. Member Moore stated another alternative is to see what the County of Hawai'i.comes up with, and if there's a framework there, can it be applied to Honolulu for school impact fees. In that scenario, the working group would wait until the County of Hawaii is finished, then the working group modifies its scope of work based on their work. Chair Sakamoto asked Mr. Portmore if he would like to comment. Mr. Portmore said their proposal begins with a series of meetings. The scope is general and loose enough now. In terms of expanding or re-focusing the scope, the scope of what the working group wants will be set by consensus. The kick-off meetings are in part designed to begin a dialogue and help the group reach consensus. Member Uchida stated that having the same consultant as the County 4f fawaii will be a benefit for the school impact fee project. Bear in mind, thougt ,l aI loot ,at3 pact fees strictly from an educational standpoint, given DOE's issues schools Ih'populatetl $ras, and growth issues as far as distribution, is very different from managing gowth with''irhpales on the Big Island. It will be interesting to see how the consultant approatt~es it Member Councilmember Kane cautioned the group abdrrpf~ng away from re;imter;tof`Act 246. His concern is for the group to stay the coursef th Fai$;Studies that were' dpfe and not be distracted by something outside of that scope. He riemindetf roup that the Yocus is on educational facilities. And, although the Big Island study will pr©dean opportunity to analyze and extract out things that are relevant to the st tj u e group sho, J` et detoured by issues unique to the Big Island. The role of the vpo kmg'~ro i 3s to help move, R.-,thing along, engage a consultant, and address the work in Act ?46 Ulturaki,Yhe groups Mary role is going to be to provide school impact fee recommendations based,.orl~ated information. Member Councilmember Kane hoped t#je group uld con~~Tr7kr;going to the Legislature and asking them for the permission tbremain in taet,ahd see th project through. The recommendations are going tbYake time. Qbvtously, the . islature put this group together because it felt that the group,consisted of people I, t "he ~etexpertise to provide recommendations for tfae sctjool impact fee iasua tJleer Councilmember Kane 'recommended that the group just follow titrip gh and get this t~~ng done. And, the reality is, if the scope is expand d -lb will be add3tjonal costs related to that. e Ghatr $akamoto sensed from thegrpp an urgency to do something sooner than later, this year nxersus next year The,hair wanted fnembers to add comments and went around the table. Member Kashiwai staYetl from his poitijbf view, this committee can move forward. It seems the scope is flexible enoug to'adjust to different concerns and variables. Data gathering and other items need to be accofished. Now is the time to request on extension and that would get us started. Member Kashi' ai,iecommended that the group start the contract now. Member Moore offered<that if the Legislature decides not to extend the life, in terms of urgency fr~?,r t the departmenf s;1 erspective, we have a fair share formula that not everyone is happy with. And, ttaelonger vY6 60 have a legislative solution, the longer the unhappiness will continue. Chen' " Moto ieplied urgency is the issue and it's important, even though there is something in place Member Imamura replied he thinks the group should move forward. The educational component is important. Personally, he would have liked to have seen the Big island report, but if there is an urgency to complete this work, then the group should proceed. Member Ching responded he would support what Member Councilmember Kane put forward. We have a specific scope that needs to be carried through and the timeframe is a reality. A simple solution would be for us to discuss whether to change the sunset date to more accurately reflect the timeframe realities. The priority is, though, that the group needs to do something. The scope is adequate to give new light and it's needed now. Member Ching sees the Big Island group as a separate discussion that could easily distract this project. We need to keep the scope focused and move forward. 4 Member Park agreed with the discussions. The act was passed because it's important. The key word that she got out of the act was fairness from DOE. This working group needs to keep that in mind and go for quality. If necessary, the timeframe can be changed. The group should keep the same scope and not worry so much about the deadline. Member Uchida agreed. As the report drafts come in from the consultant, the working group can provide comments to the consultant as opposed to just letting the Auditor handle it. There is some benefit to having the working group continue. The group is assembled and trying to move forward. The timeframe can be accommodated.. Member Councilmember Kane stated that once the body is ready to decide and can reach consensus on the adjustments needed in Act 246, we can get She.'time ~ tension to continue our 10. existence in order to play our primary role in providing c~commetat~attdo preliminary as well as final drafts of the school impact fee study. g~` `e II to extend the task ~R -Yt Chair Sakamoto said that there appears to be consen sus for amendm w force. The scope sounds like it can be worked out with utptrpnging they' Ch Or Sakamoto recommended that the working group be extended for a year. Th J . , sunset of July 30, 2006 would be pushed out to July 30 2007s' tf *yy Member Councilmember Kane asked if the Auditor's Office is IF to provide us with an estimate of the cost factor needed to carry forward 00th the working~p p and the contract study. Auditor Higa responded that it would )nave $0 6e;letermined srnafelatively quickly. We al, need to estimate the number of meetings fiM.es actua ~crsstthat is estimate what it would take to bring the consultant back 'x' numbe#ibf'times. Ofla oselwatron, and based on experience in working with other working groups likrepl~s, it is helpful if ot,o, members were available to present testimonies on behalf of the V+0l ling group'and in ttppt rt°of the measures to extend the time and request additional appropriations. Sena#e Ways arSiJ Means Committee (WAM) will accept written testimonies so members woull have to appear before that committee. Member Councilmember Kane asked for clanficatron 'mill the Auditor's Office provide written testimonies on behalf of•the aborking group? AudIV. f 1-liga responded it can be handled that way. Chair Sakamoto stated thatthe Department of Education and the Land Use Research Foundation can also provide testimonies. Member Councilmember Kane thought the testimony should reflectihe working group°sZ.8,hsensus to move forward, that way the three DOE members won't be put in a position.of possiBtyaf'i,olating Sunshine or other transparency requirement. Chair Sakamoto answered.itwe did pass a-46tion that incorporates these discussions, then yes, the testimony would be thai;of,the working group. Member Councilmembei.Kane asked about format for the testimony. Will the working group need to sign off before:it:is submitted? Perhaps the sign off should not come from Chair Sakamoto, since he sits as the Chair of the Senate Education and Military Affairs Committee. Ms, Yamane said the group could designate one or more members to present testimonies on behalf iyf.the working group. Auditor Higa stated that another option would be to submit testimonies on the-Auditor's letterhead since the Office of the Auditor is administering the working group. The testimony would reflect the consensus and position of the working group. Member Uchida suggested that the working group elect a Vice Chair. Chair Sakamoto agreed and opened nominations for Vice Chair. Member Uchida nominated Member Councilmember Kane. Upon a motion by Member Uchida, seconded by Member Moore, it was voted on and unanimously carried to close nominations for Vice Chair. Upon a motion by Member Moore, seconded by Member Park, it was voted on and unanimously carried to elect Member Councilmember Kane as Vice Chair of the School Impact Fee Working Group. Chair Sakamoto indicated it was his understanding, based upon members' comments, that the group wants the Auditor's Office to complete the consultant contract. As that is proceeding, the group wants to amend one of the bills this session to ask the Legislature to extend the life of the working group from July 30, 2006 to July 30, 2007, and to appropriate a dollar amount to be 5 determined in addition to the $150,000 to continue the work. Member Uchida stated that there should be a letter from the working group supporting the legislation. Chair Sakamoto asked the Auditor's Office to help the working group facilitate testimony to support the amendment of one of the bills. There was no further discussion on the issues. Upon a motion by Member Moore, seconded by Member Park, it was voted on and unanimously carried to have the Auditor submit testimony to the Legislature in support of extending the life of the School Impact Fee Working Group from July 30, 2006 to July 30, 2007, and to request additional appropriations to support the continuation of the working group and the presentation of the school impact fee study by the consultant to the Legislature. Planning: Ms. Yamane suggested that the next meeting be held the first week of April to facilitate the consultant's kick-off meeting with the working group. Chair SaQr Into suopested April 61"' Member Ching noted his commission meets on the first lad thir ' fturs s of every month; hence, he will be conflicted on the 6`n Member CounclrBrnber Kaneko noted that he may be conflicted. He is Maui County Council's Budget & Fi. chaireilrtb Ifil b-i the committee will be discussing the county budget. He will do his 6~~ o atierjd and wt~tlr btly staff of his availability. He expressed concern if members are n torattend wouoa3 impact the 7l "I ` n ability of the working group to work with the consultant ~~ke any neederSJusn#s'. Ms. Yamane clarified as long as the working group has quoo t c~[oup can make'c~ee7sbhs and satisfy Sunshine Law requirements. r{uh t Chair Sakamoto asked what the consultant would... a tto do at the tkt ing. Ms. Yamane stated the consultant would use that meeting to mteon vorkmg group'V perhaps refine the t ~r scope. Member Councilmember Kane slide will matt perry effort to~tend. Chair Sakamoto asked for clarification( oTdhe Suns La 31 fo .4t embers violate the law if more than two members meet with theCensulta~utside devuotking group meeting? Ms. Yamane answered that the consultant tnlends+o fact finding with the members. If the consultant meets with more.l. Two membe75, for examp]e„all three DOE members, that will not i, X. violate the Sunshine Law Faet-finding and into atior?:4 thering is permissible, but members are cautioned not to discuss Issues, especiall r cod Tri votes on issues that are going to come before the working groupepisionmaking.' P MPtnbi Ldliitla lasked whethefhat v ould be appropriate for the working group to invite Central 0,a1u' develop erb the April 6 irige i[tg. This would be developers for Mililani and Waiawa, jtastle and Cooke and gentry. ChN Sakamoto asked whether developers can do a presentation, maybe5?r hour - 15 minutes for each developer. Ms. Yamane then suggested that the meeting be converieti at 9:00 a.m. rather than 10:00 a.m. to accommodate the additional agenda items. Ms Ya'ijtare asked Member Uchida to coordinate with the Auditor's Office for technical assistance (laptpp, projector, etc.). Member Bruhl arrived at'f1:10 a.m. Future ThQe,,kt meeting.of ibe School Impact Fee Working Group was scheduled for: Meetings: " t~aYet,?a April 6, 2006 Tiriie<' 9:00 a.m. Place: State Capitol, Conf. Rm. 224 Adjournment: With no further business to discuss, Chair Sakamoto adjourned the meeting at 11:12 a.m. 6 Reviewed and approved by: Jan Yamane Administrative Deputy Auditor/In-House Counsel March 2006 [ ] Approved as circulated. [ ] Approved with corrections: see minutes of (date) meeting, 4. SIFWG/022306 '~"~!'"i+t alk. 3 14•. 1 it 1 7 STAND. COM. REP. NO.~ ' Honolulu, Hawaii MAR - 3 2006 RE: S.B. No. 2708 S.D. 2 Honorable Robert Bunda President of the Senate Twenty-Third State Legislature Regular Session of 2006 State of Hawaii Sir: Your Committee,on Ways and Means, to which was referred S.B. No. 2706, S.D. 1, entitled: "A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO SCHOOL FACILITIES," begs leave to report as follows: The purpose of this measure is to establish a statewide public school facilities impact fee for new residential developments proportionate to their impacts on public school facilities. This measure sets 'forth the amount of impact fees to be paid by a residential development per unit, including single family detached, single family attached, and duplex dwellings, apartments, and condominiums, based on the assessment district the residential development is situated in. Any impact fee assessed and collected shall be deposited in the school impact fee special fund and may only be expended in the benefit district that the assessment district is located. Further, impact fees collected may only be expended on the costs of school construction and may not be expended on operational expenses of existing schools or on the cost of acquiring land for school facilities. Your Committee has amended this measure by: (1) Deleting its contents and extending the working term of the school impact fee working group established pursuant to Act 246, Session Laws of Hawaii 2005, for one year; SB2708 SD2 SSCR LRB 06-2704.doc STAND. COM. REP. NO. Page 2 (2) Making an appropriation of an unspecified sum to • facilitate further discussion on this matter; and (3) Making technical nonsubstantive changes for clarity. As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Ways and Means that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of S.S. No. 2708, S.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Third Reading in the form attached hereto as S.B. No. 2708, S.D. 2. Respectfully submittted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Ways and Means, BRIAN T. TANIGUCHI, Ch r` • III4~ ..1 dyyooc SppBqq~2yypp70pp~~8 pppS~~D2~~IIy'II SSCpppR~qpp L~IRggB yy0py6-II2~~pp70 IINd~ G~611~I~~~tl~~INN~#E~9ill~'W9~~~NiIYI~~dW~~M~N~~INI~HC~ The Seri-ate Twenty-Third Legislature State of Hawaii Record of Votes of the 1 Committee on Ways and Means (Bills and Resolutions) Measure:' Commitlee Referral: Date: SB 2708 SD1 EDM/CPH, WAM 9'28*0 D The committee is reconsidering its previous decision on this measure. If so, then the previous decision was to: The Recommendation is to: Pass, unamended Pass, with amendments Hold lRecommit (2312) (2311) (2310 2313 Members Ayes Ayes(WR) Nays Excused TANIGUCHI, Brian T. C / TSUTSUI, Shan S. VC ENGLISH, J. Kalani ESPERO, Will FUKUNAGA, Carol HOOSER, Gary L. INOUYE, Lorraine R. KANNO, Brian 'Ile KIM, Donna Mercado KOKUBUN, Russell S. NISHIHARA, Clarence K. SAKAMOTO, Norman HEMMINGS, Fred SLOM, Sam TRIMBLE, Gordon TOTAL v 3 Recommendation: Adopted Not Adopted Chair's or Designee's Signature: Distribution: Onoinal Yellow Pink Goldenrod File with Committee Report Clerk's Office Drafting Agency Committee File Copy 'Do not list more than one measure per Record of Votes. THE SENATE 2708 TWENTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE, 2006 S . B . NO. S.D. 2 STATE OF HAWAII A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO SCHOOL FACILITIES. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII: ] SECTION 1. Section 5 of Act 246, Session Laws of Hawaii 2 2005, is amended to read as follows: 3 "SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect [se] upon approval, 4 provided that section 4 shall take effect July 1, 2005; and 5 provided further that this Act'shall be repealed on July 30, 6 [2986-] 2007." D SECTION 2. The school impact fee working group shall 8 submit supplemental findings and recommendations, including any 9 proposed legislation, to the legislature no later than twenty 10 days prior to the convening of the regular session of 2007. 11 SECTION 3. There is appropriated out of the general 12 revenues of the State of Hawaii the sum of $ , or so much 13 thereof as may be necessary for fiscal year 2006-2007, for the 14 operation of the school impact fee working group. 15 The sum appropriated shall be expended by the office of the 16 auditor which shall oversee and administer any consultant 17 contracts as may be executed on behalf of the working group for 10 8 the purposes of this Act. S$2708 5D2 LRB 06-2704-1.doc III~IIII~a~~~d~~NVV~V~1~9~~~~~~V~q~I~I~uIINIG~Ia~~ 2708 . B. 'v w , O. S.D. Page 2 S S. D, 2 • l SECTION 4. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed 2 and stricken. New statutory material is underscored. 3 SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect on July 1, 2006, and 4 shall be repealed on July 30, 2007. • • SE2708 SD2 LRB 06-2704-1.doc IIIIIIUIMIMIMVMMINYiYYMMMNYMIYMNIMIMMNMMNIMYINIM4MMpYMIYIMMIYMI NgpNNNNII ~P12^L~g, ~ ~;,2 Report Title: Department of Education; Impact Fees Description: , Extends work of school impact fee working group established by Act 296, SLH 2005, one more year to 7/30/07; makes an appropriation. (SD2) SB2708 SD2 LRB 06-2709-1.doc Hawaii State Association of Counties 4 Counties of Kauai, Maui, Hawaii and City and County of Honolulu t „ s FN March 22, 2006 Mr. Bill Hansell, President National Association of Counties (NACo) Executive Committee 440 First Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20001 Dear President Hansell: SUBJECT: HAWAII'S REPRESENTATION ON THE NACO BOARD OF DIRECTORS I am writing to inform you that the Hawaii State Association of Counties (HSAC) Executive Committee has recently voted to appoint Councilmember Daryl W. Kaneshiro to the ',:'Board of Directors to replace Councilmember James Kunane Tokioka, effec diately. J~' Councilmember Tpkok.,a expressed his sincere appreciation for having served on the NACo Board of Dire~tilsad At the same time, Councilmember Kaneshiro is willing and able to represent Ha1~" a sue; w Thank you for your attention in this matter..". :"Auld have any questions, please contact me at (808) 270-7760.„ ~ .9r. Very tr`u`ly yours, DAIN P. KAN President, HSAC ocs:prof:hsac:hsac2005-2006:061etters:060321a:ske z •O• V